Support

A cookie is a piece of data stored by your browser or device that helps websites like this one recognize return visitors. We use cookies to give you the best experience on BNA.com. Some cookies are also necessary for the technical operation of our website. If you continue browsing, you agree to this site’s use of cookies.

Events

Bloomberg Next marketing services allow clients to elevate their brands and extend their reach through our established and trusted expertise, enhanced with engaging event production, appealing design, and compelling messaging.

One tech company is hoping that offering a public bounty for evidence that will help
it fight a patent infringement lawsuit could change how patent wars are fought and
even won.

The idea of using a bounty to incentivize the public to gather evidence that can be
used to prove a patent isn’t valid goes back as far as 2000. However, it’s unusual
for a defendant in a patent infringement lawsuit to make its own request for such
evidence—also known as “prior art"—to the general public.

Normally, companies facing a patent infringement lawsuit hire outside companies to
gather prior art. Those companies may crowdsource for prior art, which is a business
model that seeks the input of Internet users for services, cash or ideas. However,
those companies pay a select community of experts for what they find, instead of putting
out a request to the general public.

Cloudflare, Inc., an internet security provider, offered a $50,000 public bounty award
last month in exchange for evidence to use against Blackbird Technologies Inc., which
claimed Cloudflare infringed its patent in March (
Blackbird Tech LLC v. Cloudflare, Inc.
, D. Del., No. 1:17-cv-00283, complaint filed
3/16/17
)
. The patent,
No. 6,453,335, from 1998, describes a system that monitors how data is transmitted back and forth
across the internet.

Prior art is documentation, such as technical papers, scientific articles, and even
patent applications, that show technology already exists in some shape or form, and
therefore, can show that a subsequently granted patent is invalid.

Cloudflare has obtained about 200 sources of prior art so far in its dispute with
Blackbird and will consider filing a patent challenge at the Patent and Trademark
Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against Blackbird. There are five pending
patent challenges from other parties against Blackbird patents at the PTAB, according
to agency data.

Blackbird’s Patent Battles

Blackbird, a patent licensing company with a portfolio that covers an eclectic combination
of technology from LED lights, pedometers, and even sports bras, makes money from
selling licenses for patents it owns rather than producing a product or delivering
a service. Blackbird has 44 patents assigned to it, according to PTOdata, and acquired
30 patent applications in 2017.

For Blackbird, convincing companies to pay for a license to one or more of those many
patents often means going to court. Since 2014, it filed 112 patent infringement lawsuits
through the end of June against an array of companies, including Sony Corp.'s mobile
unit, Netflix Inc., Home Depot, Lululemon Inc., and Uber Technologies, according to
Bloomberg Law data, and more than half of the cases filed by Blackbird ended before
going to trial, which is often the result of settlements.

Cloudflare calls Blackbird a patent troll, a derogatory term for companies that buy
patents and threaten legal action for infringement based on overly broad interpretations
of patents. Cloudflare alleged that Blackbird files lawsuits to scare parties into
settling out of court. Blackbird called that allegation “completely untrue” and said
they wouldn’t file a lawsuit without planning to go the distance.

Doug Kramer, general counsel for Cloudflare, told Bloomberg BNA that the company never
planned to settle, and this case prompted the bounty idea as a way to change the current
patent infringement litigation process.

“When we were faced with this lawsuit, we already knew that patent trolls were going
after emerging tech companies like ourselves,” Kramer said. “A lot of folks normally
settle, but if you play that game then you perpetuate that problem. We wanted to do
something that would change that dynamic.”

Companies that are sued in patent infringement cases by patent licensing companies
normally settle, so they don’t accumulate high litigation costs. It could cost more
than $5 million to defend a patent infringement lawsuit brought by a patent licensing
company, like Blackbird, according to an American Intellectual Property Law Association
2015 report.

Blackbird is not a fan of Cloudflare using the bounty tactic, but says it won’t be
effective. “It’s a distraction and I think it’s a publicity stunt, frankly,”
Wendy Verlander, co-founder of Blackbird, told Bloomberg BNA. “I don’t find it to
be an effective method. I think it’s a ‘pounding their chest’ kind of thing as opposed
to litigating the actual case.”

Good Legal Practice?

Some who have faced past lawsuits by patent licensing companies said they see the
bounty tactic as clever, but also think that $50,000 could be too low to be a successful
strategy in this case. “I think this model is innovative and well overdue,” Lee Cheng, online electronics
retailer Newegg’s former general counsel and self-proclaimed “patent troll hunter,”
told Bloomberg BNA. “But, if you think about what prior art is or kill art is—it is
evidence. Why should they do all of this just for $50,000? Let’s say this. If you
were going after Google, you have to make it worth their while.” Cloudflare’s initial offer was even lower. The company started with a $20,000 prize
for prior art, but boosted it to $50,000.

The bounty was then expanded by an anonymous additional $50,000 donation, according
to Cloudflare, bringing the total to $100,000. The company decided that the donation
would be used to help find prior art that invalidated Blackbird’s other patents. This
prior art will be made available to the public
, Cloudflare said.

Verlander said that Blackbird’s case is strong and it isn’t affected by the bounty,
due to the validity of its patent and claims. “Every defendant brings up prior art,
and they try to argue it is invalid,” she said. “We wouldn’t have brought this case
if we didn’t think we would win. The patent is strong. The case is strong. We don’t
bring a litigation unless we believe that.”

Public Bounties Ready for a Comeback?

Article One Partners LLC, an intellectual property research company that has used
the public bounty method in the past but isn’t using them any longer, supports Cloudflare
for its use of the bounty, its CEO, Peter Vanderheyden said.

Article One acquires prior art for its clients by crowdsourcing and in fact, is the
owner of a
patent on crowdsourcing prior art.

“I really do applaud them for what they’re trying to do, but at the same time the
situation is so unique,” Vanderheyden said.

Vanderheyden said that Cloudflare will more than likely be successful because there
is only one patent involved and the company has a client base of technological professionals
who are invested in patent infringement cases such as these. Adam Kelly, patent lawyer at Loeb &
Loeb, LLC, told Bloomberg BNA that he thought the idea of a public bounty was clever,
but he would caution defendants in patent cases from using the tactic, because it
could be seen as vexatious litigation, which is any type of legal action that’s used
to harass or negatively impact an opponent.

“Just imagine that you’re the judge and you hear that one of the parties has posted
a public bounty in search of prior art,” Kelly said. “What would your reaction be
as to which party is the bad guy?”

However, Kelly said that while offering public bounties could be risky in a federal
district court, using it to collect prior art for action at the PTAB should have little
to no effect on the board. This is because the prior art needed in an inter partes
review proceeding—a patent challenge hearing held before the PTAB— would already be
included in the original petition.

Cloudflare said they’ve received positive feedback and would consider using bounties
in future cases, if necessary.

To contact the reporter on this story: Ayanna Alexander in Washington at
aalexander@bna.com

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mike Wilczek in Washington at
mwilczek@bna.com

All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to books@bna.com.

Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)

Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).

This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to research@bna.com.

Put me on standing order

Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)